What Rush Limbaugh Said About Birthright Citizenship Puts Roberts and Barrett to Shame

Jimmy ParkerJuly 8, 202612

A Familiar Fight Lands Back On The Front Porch

A 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship has reopened one of the biggest debates in American law: does the 14th Amendment give automatic citizenship to every child born on U.S. soil, even when the parents are here illegally or are foreign nationals using America as a delivery room with better paperwork? According to the reported ruling, President Donald Trump’s executive order was struck down, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s liberal wing. That decision has conservatives asking a fair question: when did one sentence from 1868 become a blank check for modern immigration chaos?

Rush Focused On The Words Everyone Tries To Skip

Rush Limbaugh addressed this issue back on his October 30, 2018 radio show, and his argument was not complicated. He read the opening line of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.” Rush’s point was that the phrase does not stop at “born.” It includes “naturalized” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That last part is the whole ballgame. If those words mean nothing, then why did the framers of the amendment put them there? Apparently, some legal minds treat the Constitution like a salad bar: take the parts you like, leave the parts that ruin the narrative.

The Civil War Context Still Matters

The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the states in 1868, in the aftermath of the Civil War. Its central purpose was to correct the evil of the Dred Scott decision and make clear that freed slaves and their descendants were citizens of the United States. That history is not a side note. It is the reason the amendment exists. Rush argued that using that amendment to cover every child born to illegal immigrants or foreign birth tourists stretches the text far beyond its original purpose. The amendment was written to repair a nation after slavery, not to create a loophole for anyone who can get across the border before delivery day.

Jacob Howard’s Statement Is Not Small Print

The source discussion points to Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who helped write the citizenship clause. Howard said the amendment would not, of course, include people born in the United States who were foreigners, aliens, or part of the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. That statement matters because it speaks directly to intent. The fight is not just about geography. It is about allegiance and jurisdiction. Conservatives have long argued that the children of people who owe allegiance to another country, especially those here unlawfully, do not automatically fit the same category as freed slaves whose citizenship had been denied by a disgraceful court ruling.

Elk v. Wilkins Adds More Weight To The Argument

Rush also pointed to the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins, where the Court held that the 14th Amendment did not automatically make a Native American man a U.S. citizen simply because he was born within the country’s borders. The Court reasoned that he was subject to tribal jurisdiction, not full U.S. jurisdiction at birth. Congress later addressed Native American citizenship by law, but that case still shows the key point: birth inside U.S. territory was not treated as the only factor. Jurisdiction mattered. If jurisdiction mattered then, conservatives are right to ask why it suddenly becomes invisible when the topic turns to illegal immigration.

Why This Fight Is Bigger Than One Ruling

This debate is not about being harsh to children. It is about whether citizenship still has meaning. A nation that cannot define who belongs to it is not being generous, it is being unserious. The left loves to frame this as settled forever, because “settled” is a handy word when they do not want voters asking questions. Rush’s warning still lands because he focused on the text, the history, and the purpose of the amendment. Whether the courts want to admit it or not, millions of Americans see a difference between honoring the descendants of freed slaves and rewarding illegal entry with automatic citizenship.

WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW.

JIMMY

Find more articles like this at steadfastandloyal.com.